Charlie Rose

CAznArtFag  09/18/2012 05:11 AM Report

First of all...

"A certain amount of harmless banditry amongst the lower classes is to be smiled upon if not actively encouraged, for the health of the city. but what should we do when the highborn and wealthy take to crime? Indeed, if a poor man will spend a year in prison for stealing out of hunger, how high would the gallows need to be to hang the rich man who breaks the law out of greed?"

Snuff, Sir Terry Pratchett

On the other hand, "We are a nation of laws" is one of those stupid meaningless statements that could only come out of politicians. This is a hyperbolic example, so don't get your knickers in a twist. The argument really should be about laws which are just. Hypothetically, it was perfectly legal to round up and kill the Jews in Nazi Germany. That was the law. It didn't make it right, but they running a nation of laws too.

So accordingly, the question of I have is whether the laws governing the American people are just, or are the laws which govern the rich and powerful different from the ones which govern the ordinary person? Theft by the rich is legal whereas theft by the poor is punished?

When we can answer that question more definitively, then perhaps a true discussion can be had about the virtues and faults of Romney, Obama, Wall Street, and the other related parties.

Now let's have some fun! Here's a fun game of fix the economy that I'd like to propose... I've chatted with a number of quite learned and experienced people on this subject and no one has yet come up with a viable solution, and I strongly suspect and see evidence that there is no actual solution…

So let’s begin with a fairly accurate given: due to the success of science in extending the average life expectancy to 70-80+ years, which means almost a doubling of the average life expectancy, is a major part of the problem we face today.

Historically, I understand that job growth has traditionally only accounted for the population increase that enters the labor force. True job growth has primarily come from attrition from the labor force or in another word, retirement.

Longer life expectancies have come to be linked with decreased attrition from the labor force. It is also tied to the redistribution of wealth through inheritance. The younger generation, who might have inherited at more opportune or important time when they are younger will inherit less of a legacy due to the diminishment of an estate because the prior generation spent it on whatever was needed or desired. And never mind discussing the fact that the average wage earner has been literally earning less money for the past 5-10 years than previous generations and that with living longer themselves, they must save an even larger portion of their already diminishing paycheck. Where will the difference come from?

The international model of the distribution of money through globalization is based on the experience of Europe and America. They have; they spend. This was the projected model for China which has been shown to be incorrect. Their savings rate is at an all time high. Whatever the flow model was, it is now just pooling in Asia. Who can realistically do anything about that?

The projected model of stock market growth has been based on a statistical false high growth period. 10% growth was never sustainable as a percentage of GDP. Organizations such as CalPers is based on a model of 8% growth through their portfolio. A generous figure is estimated to be 5-6%. How is CalPers going to make up the 2% difference?

It’s a terrible thing to say, but there is truth to this statement. The fact that the standard of living has been raised around the world is due in part to the standard of living being lowered in the United States. A question put before the Occupy movement was something along the lines of this. The United States is somewhat equivalent to the 1% the Occupy movement complains about. Are the people of the movement extending that model to the rest of the world? Are they willing to give up part of their 99% for the sake of the rest of the world? Probably not.

A partial solution was implemented by the Germans. They have older workers at part-time status in order to give younger workers jobs. Will the American system follow suit? Again probably not.

A lot of people thought I was mad when I said that with globalization the entire world order will have entered a new era. Historically, we have used some form or version of the Greek city-state as the model. A nation’s laws trumps all others. But with the rise of multi-national corporations, they supersede any nation’s laws. If a multi-national doesn’t like the laws of a particular country, they can take their company to any country they like, such as the Grand Caymans, or move their money to wherever they like. Companies such as Apple have a vast quantity of cash reserves located overseas, which they can’t bring back to the U.S. due to the current tax laws. This in theory could be money spent on hiring workers or more research and development, but for them the tax liability to too great, so they keep the money overseas and continue to outsource the work. One of the auto industry companies made record profits overseas, but they couldn’t bring the money back into the United States to help save the American plants. When asked about their finances, one response was that they were an international car company and not an American one. How is any given country going to be able to fight that? There are companies out there that are worth more than several countries combined and as a multi-national they have no true ties or allegiance to any given country. Or better yet, as someone had suggested the companies already own the countries, so who care and so what, then?

Then there’s the current nature of “wealth” that been generated in the last 10-20 years. Wealth created in the United States in previous eras had immediate and future benefits for the country and its people. The robber barons left behind railroads, buildings, bridges and whatnot. The current wealth that’s been created by Wall Street, the banking and insurance industries, etc. are paper profits which when gone leave nothing behind but paper debts, with which the public are stuck holding the bag.

And I won’t even go into the concept of over population, but I have asserted previously that if a person want a raise, stop having children. That “raise” might not show up in that person’s lifetime, but it will definitely show up in their existing children’s lifetime or grandchildren. Remember the overall lower population of Europe is partly responsible for the downfall of feudalism and the serf system. Human resources is not just a department in a company.

This is less than the most coherent set of questions and argument on a subject, but it’s also been written somewhat on the fly, so I be people’s forgiveness for it’s overall problems. I do think that the questions and points brought up are valid and germane to the discussion of the voting public and who votes for whom and their reasoning.

Now let’s apply this against the question of those who are electing whom in the election. It may very well be that the elderly are voting in their own best interest, but they are in fact part of the current financial problem in the United States and possibly worldwide. This has direct bearing on the question at hand. Perhaps it isn’t so much a question of Democrat v. Republican in this tax debate, but rather another aspect of demographics. If a person is over 65 & collecting social security, then that person is a dependent upon the government. If a person is a child and lives in a poor family, that child is a dependent of the government. If a person has a disease which keeps them from working, that person is a dependent of the government. Prisoners are a dependent of the government, so maybe we should stop incarcerating so many of them. And veterans who have lost eyes, limbs or have other issues are also dependents of the government. How do you ask these people to pay taxes? They can’t and don’t work, so how are they supposed to pay “real” taxes?

If you can solve some of these dilemma, than you are worth of a Nobel Prize in Economics. One of the earlier ones has just published a book demonstrating that the United States’ myth of social mobility is just that. We currently live in a country where the wealth and education of your parents is the single largest factor to where you will be in society. Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia all outrank us in that respect. Bon chance! Vielen Glück! Gracie!

And btw-As understand it the average real earnings for a worker in the United States has been dropping for at least the last 15-20 years, so I wouldn't blame it on the current president. I'd blame globalization, multi-nationals and politicians in general... But feel free to fact check me. I seek enlightenment! :-)

NeilMacCallister  08/24/2012 04:02 PM Report

My words are not about me, Max! I am concerned with the 300 million people living around me -- including my children!!

I am concerned that we have accepted a hobbled 1.7% GDP "growth rate" -- While America's debt growth sprints "Forward" at TEN TIMES that rate!!

I am concerned that we have "accepted" 8.9% unemployment (..or MUCH higher!) in the private sector -- While the tax-purchased "government service" class is expanding both their employment numbers, and the size of their paychecks!

Don't you get it, Max???

The halls of Congress are polished marble, its doors are trimmed with well-shined brass -- And yet Congress has selfishly and steadfastly REFUSED to put down on paper the budget-identified costs of their "leadership" for the last 3 years!!!

Don't you get it, Max???

The average take-home pay for the American family has DROPPED during the Obama years! ..How much further will it be allowed to fall before we vote to stop it????

The truth is, Max, ..you never WILL "get it" with Socialism.

Max83  08/23/2012 01:33 PM Report

Thank you Neil for your reply.

This is the first time that I feel that you shared something meaningful and personal here and I have a better idea now who you truly are.

I wish you all the very best and it is my wish that you will be able to keep and build upon what you have worked hard on and for all your life.

Max

NeilMacCallister  08/23/2012 02:50 AM Report

You want ME to wake up, Max???

When I wake up tomorrow morning, ..the sun will be rising in the East. If I stand there, that sun will pass over my head, and later go set down in the West. At no point in that day, will I receive any contact from a "ruling oligarchy" telling me what to do.

But if I put my boots on, and get out my door, there is a house 2 miles away waiting for me to paint it! After that job is done, I know another home owner wanting me to install crown molding in several rooms! When I complete that work, I know a 3rd house asking me to repair their sink plumbing!

And you know what? ..I once found a person that I thought was very wonderful. I didn't even say hello for 5 years, ..but then I just got bold, and blurted out a request to share a dinner.

Nothing ever "holds us back" as greatly as our own timidity.

No socialist "over-seer" can or will procure you satisfaction in life, Max. You just need to make your choice, and build it.

Hopefully, once you build it, ..you will get to keep it!

Max83  08/22/2012 09:50 PM Report

Dear Neil,

I don't have children and I don't plan to have children in this life-time for personal reasons. Many of the younger and semi-educated and intelligent adults my age or younger think the same way as I, because firstly they cannot even afford to have children now and secondly they do not want their children to be born into a screwed up world that is ruled by a corrupt oligarchy and in which not your character or your talents count, but only the financial background of your parents and family if you have a chance to live a decent,productive and meaningful life.

People like you Neil only talk about the children and grand-children and the future generations, but what about the people my age, the current generation, that did everything they were told would make them successful and a productive part of society and that are highly skilled and educated but they still end up on social security and unemployed.

The debt is not the problem Neil, it is the system that is broken and it needs reformation. The huge deficit we have now was caused by this broken and corrupt system. The deficit is only the symptom, not the cause/root of the problem.

If things continue like they do at the moment only the uneducated or fundamentally religious people will have children. If that should happen I do not want to live here in the United States of America anymore, because it will start an intellectual and demographic Holocuast that the USA won't survive and that is why I am fighting for Truth and Justice now, not just for MYSELF but for every decent and intelligent person out there that got screwed by the gang of psychopaths, deceivers, opportunists or cowards that have infiltrated and taken over and have been ruling this country and the world for the last decades.

I tried to be very patient and understanding with you Neil, but you are just spewing some Tea Party non-sense here that I have heard and seen on youtube ads and videos for the last four years, probably paid for by Peter Thiel of PayPal wealth, and it simple is not true and I am tired of it. It is Libertarian BRAIN WASHING! or maybe we should call it BAIN (Captial) WASHING :-) from now on.

Libertarian ideals are interesting and good here and there, but you cannot run an advanced country on these principles and establish and advanced society from it. They were good principles for the Settlers, but are a hindrance now.

What have you offered to fix the problems we are facing Neil?, except some narrow minded anti-socialism ''We are all equal'' rhetoric below (which ironically sounds very communistic hahaha) or some out-dated robber baron private-property will fix it all propaganda that you would probably hear at the dinner table if you visited one of the Koch bothers' mansions or castles.

I am glad though you are replying back to me here in the comment section, because it displays very well where the problem lies. I am not your enemy and I am not considering you my enemy, but or discussion/argument here and in the comments below just shows how successful the oligarchy brain washers are with their divide and conquer media campaigns.

Wake up Neil! Please!

Have a good evening.

NeilMacCallister  08/22/2012 07:22 PM Report

Max??? ..will you please slow down for a moment and think?

What have you offered here, besides a pastiche of sliced-and-diced words from distant origins????

Please! ..America needs you to vote for YOURSELF!!!!!!

President Obama, and the Democrat Senate is FORCING America to swallow a staggering, gagging, 16 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt! ..which all comes due upon our children and grandchildren!!!

Can you REEAALLLLLY say you APPROVE of that, ..LARCENY????

How many children do you have, ..Max????

Max83  08/22/2012 03:33 PM Report

''economics and #occupywallstreet ''

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p96cYi1HQDs

''In 2008, the United States economy experienced a nearly unprecedented crisis, due to a perfect storm involving banking deregulation, complex derivatives, financial mismanagement, and larger systemic causes, including an inadequate educational system. Three years later, people rose up in protest—an organic national movement called Occupy Wall Street, its members chanting "we are the 99%" and saying that our system was broken, gamed by the wealthy and powerful.

The movement brought an entire nation's frustration with a runaway banking and financial sector, student debt, and unequal educational opportunities to the forefront of public debate. And thoughtful institutions responded, investing time and money to look into the phenomenon. On April 17th and 18th of 2012, the Rockefeller Foundation funded two panel discussions to address these urgent questions. The panels were sponsored by the New School and were held at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, and the New York Society for Ethical Culture. Moderator John Cassidy of The New Yorker perhaps summed up the issues best when he noted that the 1960s and 1970s had discredited the idea of an all-efficient government, and the 90s and zeros had done a very good job of discrediting the idea of an all-efficient market. "What's to replace both of those ideologies?" Cassidy asked. "That remains to be seen--Occupy Wall Street is obviously a part of the discussion."

Panelists included, among others, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow; Pulitzer Prize-winning financial journalist David Cay Johnston; world-class international economists Jeffrey Sachs, Raghu Rajan, Carmen Reinhart, and Robin Wells; the Financial Times's Martin Wolf, and Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.

Both panels grew out of The Occupy Handbook, a compendium of articles, edited by Janet Byrne, featuring leading economists and others on the causes and implications of the Occupy movement. This video features selections from the two panel discussions as well as public remarks by contributors to the Handbook.''

Max83  08/21/2012 05:40 PM Report

Highly recommended lecture with Q&A. Well worth the 2 hours, especially since there are only rebroadcasts happening on the Charlie Rose website at the moment.

James Rickards - Economics And National Security 1/8

Youtube video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi2PWU1MEgA&feature=bf_next&list=PLA9CC2D4F263DC59C

''James helps military and government officials understand the effects of financial warfare on national security.''

According to James Rickards ''the USA is the Saudi Arabia of Gold'' and it needs to take advantage of this super-weapon.

Max83  08/20/2012 02:22 PM Report

Another multi-millionaire heir besides Jamie Johnson of Johnson&Johnson wealth, who is using his money and influence to help society, better the world and expose corruption instead of wasting it on luxury yachts, private castles and an ego-maniac life style is Foster Gamble of Procter&Gamble wealth. This is his latest video on CAFR funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report

''Taxpayers strike it rich? - Foster Gamble''

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pvr-eN7Eu8

''As cities and states struggle to balance their budgets, folks everywhere are losing their jobs, parks are closing and people most in need are getting left in the dust. As Foster describes in this video blog, it doesn't have to be this way. Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money is currently sitting in unpublicized government investment funds and people are organizing to get it back.''

NeilMacCallister  08/19/2012 01:36 AM Report

Brian? ..Brian123??? ..I notice you brought not even one single piece of the socialist David Harvey's "short and incisive academic critique of capitalism" with you to share at this table.

We starved and withered Obama-era jobless Americans will sit and await the nourishments you say you can provide.

Don't take too long, ..okay?????

Brian123  08/11/2012 09:36 PM Report

Or, you can watch Charlie Rose giggle and interrupt people some more.

Brian123  08/11/2012 09:34 PM Report

David Harvey is among the most broadly respected academics that critique the functioning of capitalism from the left. Charlie Rose, as he so frequently does, squanders the opportunity to get Professors Harvey and Wolff heard by discussing Richard Wolff's dissertation writing woes 50 years ago, and then asking them to talk about ... CUBA!!? For no purpose other than to kill time rather than focus on analysis of the nature of capitalist crisis, which the audience could have learned a great deal about. Recommendation: Seek out a couple of David Harvey's books - they are short and often incisive - and absolutely don't bother with the dithering comments below about the Obama administration, etc. Media really does present one with false options (such as the so-called opportunity to learn from this broadcast); actually reading A Brief History of Neoliberalism or perhaps Rebel Cities would provide a superior use of time.

NeilMacCallister  08/11/2012 03:34 AM Report

okay, so be it, ..the world is to dither and wander in an obamanomic wasteland until it is completely starved and withered; ..and then we will die peacefully knowing that we, ..that we, ..that we did what??? ??? ???

That we did what???

Max83  08/08/2012 04:27 PM Report

I have nothing to add or else to say on this topic, other than that I would like to thank Charlie Rose again for inviting David Harvey and Richard Wolff on the show and offering his forum for this important conversation and discussion.

I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to share my thoughts, experiences and ideas here on the comment section.

NeilMacCallister  08/08/2012 03:31 AM Report

Max, ..some people have said they can feel their freedom only within the four walls of a monastery.

You seem to hope for freedom by refusing ALL walls, ..as well as all floors, and all ceilings.

So why do you write? ..What do you write? ..and why do you come into Charlie Rose, and then ask people to go somewhere else?

If you really want to "Solve all the problems in the world" -- you can start by picking one, stating your offered resolution, and then defending that resolution with either an argument of reason, or an observation of fact.

May I try one myself???

1.) "America was founded upon a cornerstone of 'We are all equal'."

2.) "No one therefore has a superior standing to decide for another".

3.) "Socialism's awarding of its nation's decision making to a Central Committee is in direct conflict with the belief that 'We are all equal'."

4.) "America is therefore in DIRECT CONFLICT with Socialism."

***

The table is now yours.

Max83  08/07/2012 01:13 PM Report

Hello NeilMacCallister,

you have asked/stated a similar thing before in another comment section when I talked about the Krupp and Thyssen families and their family castles etc. Here the link to that: http://www.charlierose.com/view/clip/12389.

Here a partial quote of what you said then: ''Dear Max, ..it has been fun, ..and your story sounds interesting, ..you should write it out sometime.

But before I ask you to "get to the point" in your piece below, let me just be clear on my own point: I hate the thuggery and intellectual dishonesty of "socialism".

No one can take from others, to give to themselves (..THAT is ALL that "Socialism" is!!) without the use of a whip, an iron pipe, or a bullet.''

My intention is not to state my thesis in one or two sentences because that would be ignorant of me to think that I could explain or offer a solution to the multitudes of problems that the world and the USA is facing in such few words. There are simple truths and fundamental principles to apply in certain situations in life but this is not one of them. This is complicated, because many factors need to be considered. One thing I can tell you though is that ''Socialism/Communism'' is not the real problem, but I would agree with you that neither is it the solution. I do not know how old/young you are Neil, I am 29 years old/young, but it seems to me that your opinion about Socialism is very rigid and fundamentalist and that is never healthy or productive. We need to keep an open mind in these discussions first, and stick to our political principles secondly. Words, definitions and points of view can grow and expand and we need to be open to that. My intention in posting here is to find a solution to our problems and hopefully along the way, as I stated before, share some of my experiences in the hope to educate and inspire others to find and then speak their own Truth.

I would love to agree with you Neil that it is just all the fault of socialism and communism and that we just need to stick to private property principles to fix the problems we are facing and then everything will be OK. But I know that this is simply not true, even though it might be very principled and a very to the point world view.

This kind of transformation of society for the better that I am working towards takes patience, wisdom, compassion and understanding and many different points of view to consider, yours included. If we just think in free market or socialist terms or think it is just as simple as to chose between either Democrats or Republicans we are trapped and are not looking at reality but a delusion. We need to think out of the box and not get trapped in dualistic black and white think.

One of the most challenging things will be to make people like yourself that are very principled and strong minded realize that things and times are changing and that we need balance in all spheres of society, which also means that we need both a healthy private sector as well as a healthy government sector that can act as balancing forces to each other.

Have you watched the documentary ''The One Percent'' by Jamie Johnson that I linked to below? You could do me a great favour if you would like and invest 80 minutes of your time and watch it. Here the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc

I have made my choice in life and that is neither to promote Corporatism nor is to promote Socialism, but to promote fairness, justice and honor in human society and I feel we can both agree on that and I feel we are both working towards that even if we express it in different ways.

The best way and first step to bring back more fairness, justice and also more competitiveness and innovation to society in my opinion is to stop the black banking system and to stop doing business with its off shore tax heavens, because this will make it very hard for an corrupt and greedy oligarchy to exist and thrive in the world:

Again, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_secrecy

''Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate for economics, told Komisar:

"You ask why, if there's an important role for a regulated banking system, do you allow a non-regulated banking system to continue? It's in the interest of some of the moneyed interests to allow this to occur. It's not an accident; it could have been shut down at any time. If you said the US, the UK, the major G7 banks will not deal with offshore bank centers that don't comply with G7 banks regulations, these banks could not exist. They only exist because they engage in transactions with standard banks."[5]''

NeilMacCallister  08/07/2012 03:07 AM Report

What are you talking about "Max83"???? ..Can't you just state your benchmark thesis in one sentence?? ..or maybe two??? ..And state it RIGHT HERE!!!!!

Todd and Tim, please read "Basic Economics" (Sowell) -- You only have to reach page 11 before you recognize Barack Obama's fully-enlivened and blatantly loud-living rampant FEUDALISM right here, right now, in "full color" glaring display: "In a feudal economy, the lord of the manor simply told the people UNDER HIM" (..my emphasis) "what to do and where he wanted resources put."

That is the Democrats, ..and their now multi-millionaire CEO Barack Obama.

Some people (.."Liberals") simply LOVE to live within that dictated manor, ..but rational people know that path is a "death end" avenue.

(..Where is our Beowulf to save us?????)

How old are you, Tim?? ..Todd??

Don't you think it is time you made a real CHOICE in life???

Max83  08/06/2012 04:33 PM Report

I would like to again suggest Jamie Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_%28filmmaker%29 as a guest on the Charlie Rose Show.

This is the documentary ''The One Percent'' by Jamie Johnson that I mentioned in one of my posts below. Many of you probably have seen it already. I have re-watched several times over the years. In my personal opinion this documentary from 2006 has contributed more to the ''Occupy Wall Street'' movement than any other piece of research and media I know and it is as current and important today as it was back in 2006 when it was first released. The documentary is spot on and absolutely covers and confirms my own personal experiences and research. The only thing I would add to it is the aspect of off shore tax evasion and not just job but also money outsourcing that some of the very greedy and corrupt members of the money aristocracy here in the USA engage in and that I commented on at length in my other comments below.

I have some very active ''Occupy Wall Street'' activists in my extended family and these young people had no clue about how the economy works and who the faces and families are behind the large corporations that dominate the economy and our lives or that they even existed, but after they watched ''The One Percent'' they had an awakening and after this education they felt confident enough and conscious enough to actively participate in the Occupy movement, especially because some of them were unemployed at the same and they had much time on their hands. Now they are employed again and are far less active in the Occupy movement than before, as far as I can tell.

So thank you again to Jamie Johnson for his courage and visionary foresight.

Here a link to the full length documentary ''The One Percent'' on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc

''This 80-minute documentary focuses on the growing "wealth gap" in America, as seen through the eyes of filmmaker Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune. Johnson, who cut his film teeth at NYU and made the Emmy®-nominated 2003 HBO documentary Born Rich, here sets his sights on exploring the political, moral and emotional rationale that enables a tiny percentage of Americans - the one percent - to control nearly half the wealth of the entire United States. The film Includes interviews with Nicole Buffett, Bill Gates Sr., Adnan Khashoggi, Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Ralph Nader and other luminaries.

http://www.theonepercentdocumentary.com/ ''

todd1968  08/05/2012 09:48 PM Report

Sure. I'm sure a lord somewhere said "feudalism is the best system ever invented. God made those that work, those that pray, and those that fight." I'm sure they duped a few serfs to support Republican, too.

timcat  08/05/2012 09:42 PM Report

I'm sure that narrow-minded people thought Feudalism would last forever too.

NeilMacCallister  08/05/2012 11:59 AM Report

Capitalism is not "in crisis", the concept of private property will always be waiting and ready for us, should we ever grow to maturity.

What is in crisis is the world economy. The people are having their earnings taken from them by self-serving leisure-class government thieves.

No Capitalist ever takes my money -- only Socialist lazy government bureaucrats do that.

No, Capitalism is not in crisis. WE are, as citizens bearing the responsibility of our votes.

Max83  08/04/2012 08:55 PM Report

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_secrecy

''Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate for economics, told Komisar:

"You ask why, if there's an important role for a regulated banking system, do you allow a non-regulated banking system to continue? It's in the interest of some of the moneyed interests to allow this to occur. It's not an accident; it could have been shut down at any time. If you said the US, the UK, the major G7 banks will not deal with offshore bank centers that don't comply with G7 banks regulations, these banks could not exist. They only exist because they engage in transactions with standard banks."[5]''

and

''Trusts as vehicles for tax evasion and money laundering

According to a book published in 2010 by an investigative journalist, the successful campaign to limit bank secrecy will likely lead to an increase use of trusts, mostly based in the UK or the USA.[15] Such trusts can be used for tax evasion and money laundering.[16]''

and

''In the aftermath of the UBS and Julius Baer banking cases, some wealthy clients who continue to use offshore accounts are turning to private banks in Singapore and Hong Kong. In addition to the local Singapore or Hong Kong banks, offices have been opened in those localities by a number of Swiss private banks.[11] The move to Singapore and Hong Kong is an alternative to the banking secrecy that Swiss banks have come under attack for. Singapore has bank secrecy provisions comparable to those in Switerland. Although Hong Kong does not have the same bank privacy laws, it offers flexibility in the creation of opaque companies that can serve as tax conduits.[12]''

When I was young I lived in Buchs, Switzerland for two years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchs,_St._Gallen just across the border from Liechtenstein and I spent much time in Liechtenstein and also in Austria.

In my personal opinion Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland are the ''Golden Triangle of Europe''. I very much agree with the quote of Joseph Stiglitz from above.

I have been part here and there of these money circles through family connections and it is very nice to be part of this in-crowd and it is a very pleasant and charming life-style, but this monetary supremacy, greed and secrecy is destroying both our planet and our humanity and that is why I am speaking up about these things. I have nothing against very rich or even super wealthy people and families, especially if they earned their wealth through outstanding entrepreneurship. However if their actions (crony capitalism and insider trading) and in-actions (evading/not paying taxes) do much harm to the greater public as they are doing now this needs to be exposed and stopped. Some of these families are very benevolent and very enlightened however other families and individuals of this super rich and powerful Elite class have extremely outdated neo-feudal attitudes and their actions and behaviours are sucking the life blood out of this planet and if we do not stop this and them in time nobody will be able to live happily on this planet, neither them nor us.

That is why I am so passionate about this topic and do anything I can to spread this knowledge to a wider public so more people can get educated.

Especially important is that benevolent members of the Elite, are starting to apply peer pressure on their fellow Elitists because this will change this game the quickest for the better.

I as a little insignificant person without much money can only do so much about this. This has to be a top down and bottom up revolution at the same time.

progressiveGreene  08/04/2012 06:16 PM Report

Thank you Charlie for putting Richard Wolff on the TV. He is a detractor from the power elite you usually endorse through your attention. Please continue to put on smart and ethical guests such as this rather than your usual "might makes right" criminals and economic royalists which I so often find when I check to see who you are propping up with your power of national exposure and less than challenging questions. Your acquiescence to the horrible people really does advance their cause. Please consider more guests who provide logical and ethical reasons for the uprising of the 99% and stop enabling the propaganda and talking points of the "elites" who have failed the masses for the last decade and more.

vongleichent  08/04/2012 06:27 AM Report

Lot's of info in this conversation. Very Interesting case about northern spain. Never heard of this collective corporation. The inequality case is astonishing small under such a structure.

Max83  08/03/2012 12:57 PM Report

Hello again EPatrickMosman,

I was aware of this and I did not deliberately overlook it. As you can see below I said that the richest people in the world are at the moment probably mostly still coming from the USA, even if China and India, the BRICs are on the rise and that therefore maybe only 20 trillion US Dollars are owned by Americans off shore and not being taxed correctly.

I would have quoted more of the article to get a really clear and complete picture:

''The report also highlights the impact on the balance sheets of 139 developing countries of money held in tax havens by private elites, putting wealth beyond the reach of local tax authorities.

The research estimates that since the 1970s, the richest citizens of these 139 countries had amassed $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of "unrecorded offshore wealth" by 2010.''

So even if the wealthy of these developing countries amassed lets say 10 trillion generously, we would still have about 22 trillion of off shore wealth in the developed world (10 trillion subtracted from the 32 trillion total), which rich US citizens are the main wealth holders of, that is not being taxed when it should be. How much that tax rate will end up being I do not know. All I know is that that money is not benefiting the United States and its citizens but only a very tiny Elite and is just sitting there untapped while everybody is going bonkers about the ''HUGE deficit'' and the super rich blame it on the government when they are really not doing their fair share.

Also the wealth held in developing countries is often held in gold and other physical assets, whereas in the developed world like in the USA people people prefer to hold their wealth in money in a bank account, so the estimated number of the 7 to 10 trillion held by Elites in the developing countries off shore in money/cash could actually be significantly lower. As you read in the article gold and real estate holdings are excluded from those estimates and much of the wealth in developing nations is held in gold and real estate because many of the Elites there do not trust paper money and they want their money close not thousands of miles away in Liechtenstein or in Austria where it could be more easily confiscated. For example all the illegal drug business conducted in the Golden Triangle in Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Triangle_%28Southeast_Asia%29 is done through physical gold. The farmers are paid in physical gold bars for the poppies/opium they produce. The gold is then sometimes laundered into paper money in Hong Kong and goes into the banking system and then gets transferred to one of the off shore tax heavens, but mostly it just stays in physical gold in my personal opinion. So as I said it would not even show up in the report of the Tax Justice Network.

I agree with you that even if the US would consider confiscating some of their wealthiest citizens money from off shore accounts it would probably be very difficult to do and if they ever came close, those rich individuals would probably trade in their paper/digital wealth in their off shore accounts into physical gold and bury it somewhere in underground, super remote and super secure vaults and the government would never reach it or they would buy with it art, jewellery or top notch real estate all over the world.

So, as I said below the only way this problem and imbalance can truly be fixed permanently and for the benefit of the greater public and the entire country is if these super rich individuals and families have a change of heart and mind and share or give away some of their hidden wealth voluntarily either in the form of taxes to the government or through donations to philanthropic causes that help the USA.

EPatrickMosman  08/03/2012 08:12 AM Report

Max83,

You overlooked, deliberately :-),the basis for the report's estimates;

"The report also highlights the impact on the balance sheets of 139 developing countries of money held in tax havens by private elites, putting wealth beyond the reach of local tax authorities."

Since when has has the United States been considered a "developing " country and how would the US confiscate alleged hidden assets,hidden in relatively plain sight, of non-US citizens of these 139 countries.

Max83  08/02/2012 10:33 PM Report

EPatrickMosman,

you probably heard about the article I refereed in the comment section earlier below:

Super-Rich Hold Up To $32 Trillion In Offshore Havens: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/super-rich-offshore-havens_n_1692608.html

Quote from the article:

''Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.''

Most of these rich individuals that hold their wealth off-shore are Americans at this time and they earn interest on these up to 32 trillion Dollars (for just American citizens it might just be 20 trillion) and so there is a huge tax revenue loss/hole for the IRS and the US government from that off shore wealth.

I have heard that argument before you quoted and it is accurate and correct but it is not complete, because it does not consider the off shore holdings of the Super Rich, it just states their annual income officially.

I you confiscated every dime the super rich own off shore and in gold you would easily be able to pay off the deficit and would also be able to transform the US energy grid into a completely green and sustainable grid. I am not suggesting this of course to confiscate that money but the Super Rich should at least bring their off shore trillions back to US soil out of the off shore tax heavens and then pay their fair share of income tax on the interest that they earn on those trillions.

It really comes down to morals and ethics in the end in my opinion and we can just hope that these super wealthy people have an awakening and ask themselves what they could do for their country and their fellow country men and women with their money instead of what they can get of the country and what it can do for them and their bank accounts.

EPatrickMosman  08/02/2012 12:44 PM Report

The idea the we can " get rid of our debt by taxing or expropriating from the rich, who have more than enough money to pay off the national debt AND pay for a nationwide jobs programs." shows a stunning lack of knowledge of the facts. A report in 2009 from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich — 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more — earned a total of $240 billion. Even if you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days. Of course, about a quarter of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So make that 18 days.

Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009.

Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.

They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are now $1.5 trillion a year.

Gelles  08/02/2012 03:42 AM Report

Parenthetical remark:

(If Charlie Rose asked Amazon to lend this archive their post-send editing system for bulletin boards (that they use for their infinite number of forums), and asked Google to lend us their task window for easy research as we write (I have one -- but it gets away from me with different browsers -- I think Google could embed it in the Rose archive to never get lost), we might have what we deserve now not later in this era.

Gelles  08/02/2012 03:26 AM Report

Competitive capitalism has a great role to play in our future. But cooperative commands from the apex of our financial-governmental operations, is also needed.

Our corrupt congress, and moral slack grown to monstrous size in this modern age, need to be reformed the way they were in the 1940's.

There is no way around the contradictions of debt-based money other than the re-introduction of output-based money as we used to become the arsenal of democracy that saved us seventy odd years ago -- and earlier in the American Revolution and in the Civil War, (where Lincoln ruled the banks and not the other way around.)

Paul Krugman tells us this. Niall Ferguson tells us false stories of austerity and how we do not want democracy -- but Asia wants to eat our lunch.

The remarkable interview with Larry Page (Google) tells us of the enormous complexity we enter in this digital age. It demands open systems and a shared determination to do no evil. Capitalism, without geniuses like Page, Groves, Kaiser, and Franklin Roosevelt, whose emphasis on full employment and the purposes of democracy and its tools, in his Second Bill of Rights, are calling on Charlie Rose today to invite to his table our current voices of optimism who know what money is and where its power to produce originates.

If we cannot replicate the home front of 1940's in today's struggle we will have committed suicide as a nation and a leader in the revolutionary improvements brought about by the Enlightenment, Darwin, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and all who still have faith in fairness and an open mind to the power of fairness to triumph over ignorance and the wrong side of history.

Gelles  08/02/2012 03:01 AM Report

Ken Burns "WAR", telling how democracy was saved from extinction by American warriors and workers, how the workers, financed by a command economy, drawing all its hyper-investment super-money from the American Central Bank, and related government tools called savings programs and price controls, PRODUCED all our workers, engineers, and management geniuses, like that Henry Kaiser and General Leslie Groves, could cooperatively accomplish, explain for us today, how capitalism must evolve to keep democracy again from disappearing before our eyes.

Max83  08/02/2012 02:33 AM Report

The next phase of the Occupy Wall Street protests is beginning:

''Occupy the Hamptons''

http://occupythehamptons.org/

and

http://observer.com/tag/occupy-the-hamptons/

This is a very intelligent approach in my opinion, because it really hits the oligarchy in their own backyards.

As I said below the banks are just the front companies for the super rich and they are not personally phased by the protests in the city, but if the young people bring their activism to Long Island i.e. the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, even Monaco or Saint-Tropez and Cannes in Europe and other Elite vacation spots around the world this will really send a message to the Elites that they cannot keep living in their luxury bubbles while the rest of the country and the world is suffering.

Also my suggestion for another guest on the Charlie Rose show would be film maker and millionaire heir Jamie Johnson, who made the brilliant documentaries ''Born Rich'' and ''The One Percent'': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_%28filmmaker%29 and who is considered a class traitor by many members of the Elite.

mgraber13  07/31/2012 05:25 PM Report

Thank you so much Charlie and company for bringing David Harvey and Richard Wolff on to the program to have this conversation.

One criticism: Charlie was searching for an example of a Nation-state that practices the sort of economy which the guests were describing. The two guests were hard-pressed to give an example, and I think this shows a failure in Charlie's imagination. If it isn't being implemented elsewhere, then is it possible?

But the entire premise of their argument depends on separating the means of production from the economic and political elite, and allowing workers to control the means of production. The implementation of this system then depends on the consent of the individuals involved, rather than the implementation from a government. The government's role would simply be to redistribute wealth and property in an equitable fashion (if the government would be capable of such a thing), or to stop protecting the wealth of the few at the expense of the many.

But again, to enable and realize actual and equitable redistributions and reconfigurations of property ownership, we must first begin to have these conversations.

Well done Charlie. May there be many more to come.

sankar772000  07/31/2012 04:52 PM Report

Dear Charlie,

I have been a viewer of your show for over 6 years now. I have always tuned into your show in the hopes of seeing and hearing an unbiased view on some of the most important issues that face us today.A refreshing difference from the talking heads on partisan channels who have agendas of their own.

However, for the past several months, your show has devolved into a republican-leaning show that uses its forum to either undermine the current administration, shame guests from the current administration or elicit answers from guests that are favorable to a very partisan political agenda.

It is extremely sad that the last show to have any remaining objectivity has been replaced by a show that attempts to operate with a clear partisan political mission.

Hoping you will take this into consideration in the future.

Warm Regards,

Sai

spartan2600  07/30/2012 01:34 PM Report

Richard Lipscombe: the whole reason WWII got us out of the Great Depression was because it was an *enormous* government spending program, far bigger than even the New Deal. Also, Wolff never claims he wants the government to go into more debt, it sounds like you didn't listen past the first 30 seconds of the interview and then went straight to the comment box. Wolff advocates democratizing the economy, empowering workers a la the Mondragon Collective. Besides that, if you'd listen to Wolff's other lectures, you'd know that he says we should increase some spending and simultaneously get rid of our debt by taxing or expropriating from the rich, who have more than enough money to pay off the national debt AND pay for a nationwide jobs programs.

Ellen_Dibble  07/30/2012 09:49 AM Report

Supposedly the rich, such as Romney, are already redistributing their capital to the maximum advantage of both the USA and the globe. Doesn't their obvious success qualify them? They are the "elect," and as such deserve to take the helm. Is there a better way to take direction? Not without extraordinary educational, um, requirements -- actually globally, given our growing interdependence and exposure. Meanwhile, we muddle along the best we can, mostly in spite of environmental (and political, financial, etc.) milieu. It seems to me plenty of American communities are using Mondragon-like tactics out of sheer necessity, seeing as how corporate and federal muscle is no longer, um, parenting them.

jthomas10  07/30/2012 06:20 AM Report

Why do people believe that just because the current economy now values certain “new” jobs more than older “classic” jobs that capitalism is in decline?

There are three types of people in this world: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that don’t know what happened. Right now we are dealing with people who have a 1960s, 70s and even 80s mentality that are living in a modern world that has radically changed around them but their mentality has stayed the same. The autoworker that performed the same job for 20 years does not have the same mental capacity when compared to someone who works for Google today; nor should he be expected to have it. I think we can all agree on that, therefore why should we expect that their outcomes/salaries be the same or even close. Given today’s changing modernizing economy, a product that has been built for 100 years is still important to us but has become a basic part of our life; it no longer takes front and center as it did so many years ago. So if a product hasn’t changed in 100 years (sure its modernized, but connecting bolts at GM 60 years ago and connecting bolts today takes no advancement in the mental capacity of a worker) why would we pay more? We shouldn’t. So as the world modernizes and these jobs stay the same, we will continue to see a “gap” in income of the highest and the lowest.

Gelles  07/30/2012 05:45 AM Report

To richard-lipscombe ~

You are right that WWII and its full employment system of production gave America and all nation-states proof that they could financially afford anything they could produce in fact.

It turned Functional Finance into an achievement little appreciated by those it served so well:

..... GOVERNMENT REMAINS THE LENDER OF LAST RESORT

Richard Wolff, intellectual and economist, notes the support by banks and employers (who are too big to fail,) for government loans to themselves -- but not to their customers, cousins or neighbors.

Such "small enough to fail" firms and families, appear to some to be too numerous to lend small sums of money?

Yet, we tax even small and troubled firms and people as individuals every April; and they have to send government tiny sums of money (compared to total tax revenues).

For historical reasons, government retains its money-creating monopoly that permits it to send to individuals small sums, (such as checks for $1,000), for virtually no cost at all.

Checks may or could be be sent to people as loans against their social security or taxpayer account, on the borrower's request, because they qualified for the loan "in the public interest". These loans could prevent economic contractions caused by deflation or similar injury to the nation.

The above "pump priming" by the monopoly money-supplier might be the most efficient way to bolster laissez-faire ideas -- compared to more complicated reform solutions (to unemployment and economic slow-downs.)

If such simplistic solution were feared because it might pose a moral hazard to the economy, the solution could be tested on small regions inside the nation (or other small test samples defined for convenience.)

If the tests were successful, the loans would be scaled up in the national interest.

Obama and Romney promise recovery and economic support for our national defense and future role as an example of national values and rational real economic performance.

Yet, neither candidate promises to deliver immediate results (as economic justice and Paul Krugman demand): are they both liars? Do we need to review our whole societal and economic system used to manage supply and demand in trying times?

..... If we do, should both of them insist on such review NOW -- and in the OPEN -- on nation-wide TV and the Internet?

Millions of Americans are critical of both of these candidates -- WE THE PEOPLE are so damn critical it may be impossible for the coming election to promise the success America deserves in light of its resources and economic potential.

.

All of the above is simple arithmetic and is not an effort to show off and drop names that adds up to nothing practical.

..... REMant sets the pace for such meaningless name dropping and showing off.

..... Why say this? Why insult one of our own? Because WE are the problem -- when we talk endlessly -- and offer nothing worth trying to create money, jobs and output that solved these same problems in the 1940's (when Keynes' monetary system of production used output-based money to produce all needs and lead FDR to tell us to enact a Second Bill of Rights.)

..... Bring back that Second Bill. Create a limited amount of new necessary fiat money. Let the contracts. Accomplish the tasks included in common sense lists of goals and tasks: defense, R & D, education, infrastructure, hydrogen energy storage systems, solar and related energy production systems, health care for everyone (in the public interest), peace and diplomacy, and economic democracy, etc.

WE THE PEOPLE have the votes for grand solutions -- and the resources and the money. All we lack is purpose and political will.

..... Wall Street has not been up to the task of FINDING THESE FACTS HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT. Washington and other global capital cities have also failed to find them.

..... Wolff says look to Mondragon's production systems in Spain. This at least is a beginning -- as we also look back to American Functional Finance and Functional Law of the 1940's.

richard-lipscombe  07/29/2012 11:45 PM Report

It is hard for me to take this discussion seriously because as usual it is simply pub talk between 3 liberals...but the topic is important so I want to make my simplistic pub talk contribution here...

David Harvey is a geographer...his views seem to relate well to spaces but not to people...he seems to understand little about people, social structures, social networks, or community (we needed an anthropologist here - even another liberal would have helped!)...Harvey talks about what is wrong with the world but seems to have nothing to contribute on fixing them...

it is clear to most sane people that capitalism, as we have known it, is under stress and that it is in decline...as global networks emerge and the nation-state declines then we will have to find a new way of allocating resources...perhaps, over the C21st, China will show us a new way to do this? perhaps there is a new cooperative model of free trade and state regulation that can work to improve the lives of all...

David Harvey presents a commentary on The Tea Party that suggests he thinks they were treated more favourably than The Occupy Movement...perhaps this is true...perhaps they were less disruptive in their protests...but what he fails to acknowledge is that The Tea Party took their debate to the Congress - they got members elected who are now using the democratic system to change the role and influence of government...

The Occupy Movement failed to articulate a clear agenda let alone form a collective capable of reforming capitalism... The Occupy Movement became instantly popular because there is a huge redistribution problem in America...but they offered no contribution to resolving those deep seated issues except for a catchy slogan - 99:1...

Wolf wants more of what Pelosi, Reid, and Obama want - ie spend future taxpayers money on current day social redistribution programs that have demonstrably failed to boost economic growth... Wolf's argument that spending saved us in the great recession of early C20th is simply wrong, it did not - WWII saved us if you want to be blunt...

is another WW the ultimate answer to the decline in Capitalism? it is surely a valid question to ask ourselves... but I hope that another WW is not the only viable answer...

cheers, richard.

Max83  07/29/2012 11:12 PM Report

Thank you Charlie for giving these intelligent and brave men a voice!

If we continue to have discussions like this and consider some of these ideas and implement them, we do not need revolts in the streets and nationwide revolution and also it will keep radicalism to a minimum.

Disclaimer: I have never read Marx nor do I want to read Marx.

All I know about Marx is that he lived in London, which is ironic because London is the epicenter of the financial manipulation and oligarchy which this world and now finally also the USA is suffering under. I know that the oligarchy of this planet Earth used both Communism and Nazism for their purposes and agendas. As it was correctly stated Wall Street funds and is embedded in both parties here in the USA, the Republicans as well as the Democrats. The Oligarchy Super Class is the real problem, and it is not Jamie Dimon I am talking about here. He is just one of their useful worker bee middle management idiots and the mega banks are just their front companies, and they do not mind if a couple of them go bust every now and then. The real power is behind the curtain operating from the shadows, very discreetly.

Follow the money:

Super-Rich Hold Up To $32 Trillion In Offshore Havens: Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/super-rich-offshore-havens_n_1692608.html

What is not often mentioned is that about only 100,000 individuals hold about 50% of this money, which would equate to 16 trillion US Dollars for 100,000 people, which would be 160 million Dollars per person, and this does not include their gold holdings, real estate etc. Of those 100,000 people probably 20,000 own 80% of the 16 trillion.

Mitt Romney falls exactly in this kind of net worth area, he is worth ca. 250 million US Dollars some people say, however he is just one of the front men too.

Thank you again for this Charlie. This is true patriotism, calling a spate a spate even when it makes you unpopular with the trendies and the insider crowd.

insidejobbeliever  07/27/2012 07:51 PM Report

Bravo for including David Harvey! All the naysayers (below) are simply confirming the McCarthy effect discussed in the show.

Yes, I agree it's a pity Mr. Rose didn't let Prof. Harvey talk more about his latest book (so much more than just a marxist...).

Too bad Mr. Rose couldn't set aside enough time for them to go into a REAL discussion of whether it is possible for social justice and Capitalism to exist, especially in late-stage scenarios such as the one in which we are beginning to find ourselves.

tabs  07/27/2012 06:04 PM Report

Mr Harvey and Mr Wollf should be recipients of the Hyde Park Soap Box Award for crack pot intellectualism. The problem with these two Gents is that they offer NO CLARITY OF DEFINITION. One wonders if these two Gents in particular Mr Wollf even thought this stuff up on his own, for they have offered NO PROCESS OR MECHANISM to support the inner workings of their theories.

Mr Wollf states that there "was 50 years of prosperity" but does not offer the reason for this as being the Great American Post World War 2 Prosperity Boom that lasted until 2008. When the system was no longer sustainable and went bust due to mismanagement, not only did the financial but also the political and bureaucratic types deigned that a known quantity was better than an unknown quantity of letting the current systems chips fall where they may. Thus the leadership of the system decided to prop up the old system as best they could with the now dysfunctional conventional wisdom of yesteryear. Further when a systems leadership becomes dysfunctional and can no longer provide stability of the system they lose credibility and then power. Out of the chaos a new system and leadership begins to arise as power abhors a vacuum. The unknown quantity today is whether or not the current system needs continual propping up with QEing aka as Stimulus in order to remain viable, or will it fail without such support. Further Mr Wollf stated that no one questioned "Capitalism" for those 50 years. This was due to the fact that there was enough money to go around even having access to credit, that no one not only didn't questioned the system but thought that everything was hunky dory and went to sleep. However in 2008 the American people were informed by GW Bush that the Party was over and out of that arose the Middle Class based Tea Party. The Tea party folks have skin in the game and as such make the likes of Nancy Pelosi's "Astroturf" statement sound ridiculously out of touch with reality. One might even liken the Tea Party folks as being representative of an American Spring. Some might even suggest that the Tea Party have much the same conservative Middle Class values as the Muslim Brotherhood does in Egypt?

In the end the great debate isn't over the viability of Capitalism, because the Social Democrat model is already a failed model. Further those "Cooperatives" that Mr Harvey and Wollf tout as being the wave of the future used to be known as "Guilds" during the Middle Ages. Not to forget MR Rose's statement about being "Social" as a reference to being a European style Social Democrat, it was at his table that Andy Stern of SEIU said that, "He wanted to implement the German Social Democratic model in America." Mr Rose how many times did MR Stern visit the Obama WH and what Presidential councils did Mr Stern sit on? Mr Rose these two Gents represent second stringers even with the dropped reference of having "A PhD in Econ from Yale" on his resume. If these two Gents represent the best that the American educational system has to offer, is it any wonder why it is failing? Mr Rose one thinks you need to do better than these two.

patrickburke  07/27/2012 06:03 PM Report

Thank God for Charlie Rose. There seems to be absoultley no other mass media outlet for this kind of dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree with the insights of misters Harvey and Wolff you must agree that the experiment of capitalism has had its failures and is in great need of either an overhauling or a serious upgrade.

I was also much perplexed by the notion that academia would be so callous as to squash discourse on Marxism or any subject for that matter. Not so surprising however is the notion that the idea of discussion of the failures of capitalism having too long been taboo in this culture are now enjoying some openness maybe leading to some serious progressive evolutionary changes in the system. Is that too much to hope for?

Bluesmeup  07/27/2012 06:01 PM Report

why can't Mr. Rose learn to keep his mouth shut while guests are trying to make important points? Seems Mr. Rose has to let everybody know that he's the expert by interrupting people who are really know what they're talking about. Charlie interrupted Mr. Wolf and Mr. Harvey a number of times... play back your tapes, Mr. Rose, and learn something!

EPatrickMosman  07/27/2012 04:51 PM Report

Mr. Rose,

Many thanks for reminding the viewing public that here are still several old Marxist devotees still knocking about in academia,writing books on and arguing in favor of its hoary old failed economic system. Before Karl Marx there were the first Pilgrims in the New World who opted for communal farming which led to failure and famine.The solution, private farms which led to increased harvests, the end of famine and the sale of products to other communities. Read it here: http://jpatton.bellevue.edu/biblical_economics/pilgrimstory.html by Dr Judd W Patton

Of course when asked neither of the gentleman could provide one example of a working communal based economic system that would support hundreds of millions it not billions of people or comment on the totally failed Marxist/Communist economics that ruled the USSR and Eastern European countries from the end of WWII until the 1990s.

In the attempt to elevate FDR to the role of slayer of the 1930's depression they ignore the fact that

in 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., wrote in his diary and told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

The 19% unemployment of 1938 and 15% in 1940 ended as the millions of unemployed volunteered or were drafted into the military and government spending went into real jobs in factories, shipyards producing planes, tanks, trucks ships,jeeps,guns and other military needs.

RPinto  07/27/2012 03:29 PM Report

To REMant:

Having read your comment twice, frankly, I understand nothing at all (wherefore I find myself echoing your last sentence). Would you deny that we live in a dollarocracy?

Dasein  07/27/2012 03:20 PM Report

ATTENTION! Please advise the porter that there are two old men trying to hide in the dustbin labelled 'HISTORY.'

PeterCrangle  07/27/2012 03:05 PM Report

Superb conversation. Thank you Charlie and guests. And thank you Occupy and it's stalwart predecessors for opening up this sort of space for much needed discussion in public forums. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and all their regulated, laissez faire, centralized, autocratic, militaristic variations: EpicFail. Heads are still being scratched, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Everybody needs a hobby. "Life will always be bad enough for the desire for something better not to be extinguished in men." -- Maxim Gorky

dollarability  07/27/2012 02:53 PM Report

The guests seem to be implying that the solution to the global economic crisis is anarcho-syndicalism. Pace Noam Chomsky, I don't think anarcho-syndicalism solves the fundamental problems of mercantilism and market competition, while adding the additional problem of how to develop new industries. That said, it seems clear that the market and currency based system is rapidly failing due to globalism, technological acceleration and the follies of mercantilism itself, in which actual production is increasingly replaced by financial capitalism as Marx predicted. Technocracy, Inc.; R. Buckminster Fuller; Jacques Fresco; the Zeitgeist Movement; and the authors of Natural Capitalism appear to understand this best, and the solution appears to be the implementation of progressive technocracy on a global scale. How to get from here to there politically and socially is of course the problem. Consequently, an interval of fascism as we approach the technological singularity seems very likely to me.

gcoat  07/27/2012 02:26 PM Report

Charlie is the man. Never expected to see David Harvey here.

CHEERS!

GCOAT 2.0